"Christians are the new Negro" - World Net

I came across this article in a Dominionism watch community on LJ. Another LJ member described this article as "staggering ignorance on this man's part" and I don't think I could put it any better myself. Full text below, including links that were part of the original article.

I did not become a Christian so I would have to fight for my constitutional freedoms all over again.

Growing up in Alabama being black, knowing how that felt and the way I was treated in an all-white world of power and control, I had to fight for equal rights under the Constitution. How ironic now as a Christian to have those same thoughts and feelings again and to have to try and wrestle control of my constitutional rights from the secular community.

Many reading this may not understand where I came up with this concept of calling Christians "the new Negro."

The reason is because there are undeniable similarities. Jim Crow laws were passed to keep me from having my constitutional rights and my rights under the Declaration of Independence of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Even though the Constitution gave me those freedoms, man was smart enough to be able to keep me from living those freedoms by saying I was "separate but equal."

Today, my constitutional right of freedom of religion is being eroded again by laws such as the Hate Crimes Bill and repeated attacks by the politically correct crowd. Threats that came along as a result of an African American wanting to get out from under Jim Crow laws were formidable and scary and designed to keep African Americans quiet. The same thing is happening to Christians today.

Another way secular society is trying to control Christians is by the fallacy of the separation of church and state. That establishment clause was intended to protect the church from the state, not to keep the church from participating in the state. Christians' ignorance of the meaning of the establishment clause has allowed us to be controlled just like the African Americans were in the 1950s and '60s.

Many may question why I'm writing this article because they can't see the fight in our society and world concerning the overt attack on Judeo-Christian values.

If you don't believe one could be attacked for one's stand on Judeo-Christian beliefs alone, take the case of Miss California, Carrie Prejean. Look at her refusal to compromise her Christian values. She has been vilified and demonized and lost her title simply because of her constitutional right to freedom of religion. What is so encouraging is that she will not compromise; she will not give up her values and would rather please God than take what the world has to offer her.

Sarah Palin is another example.

The politically correct crowd has a very difficult time dealing with Sarah because of who she is. Mrs. Palin is a pro-life, pro-gun, pro-traditional-marriage, pro-hunting, white, conservative, Christian male who happened to have been born a woman! The politically correct crowd knows exactly what to do with a white male with those attributes, but a woman?

She is the perfect picture of the politically correct woman – strong, beautiful, able to both buy and fry the bacon, take care of the family, run an entire state and still take care of her baby. But because of who she is, and because she does not subscribe to politically correct thinking, she has been attacked for no other reason than her Judeo-Christian values, just as African Americans were attacked for no other reason than their skin color.

(Column continues below)

If you still don't think Christians are being attacked for our beliefs, consider Pastor Ake Green in Sweden and Pastor Stephen Boisson in Canada and many other men of God around the world who have been jailed and had their nonprofit status threatened because they dare to call homosexuality a sin. The sad commentary is many Christians have backed off our God-given responsibility to tell the truth because secular society has deemed the truth "political." Marriage is a church issue, pornography is a church issue, homosexuality is a church issue, and divorce is a church issue. The problem is, as soon as the secular elites named them political, the evangelical church – especially the white evangelical church – retreated and held up the cowardly white flag.

If you don't think Christians have become the new Negro, just look at Christmas! We are no longer able to celebrate Christmas in schools. Even though as taxpayers, our tax dollars help pay for our broken educational system, we are forced to celebrate winter break and the fabulous "holiday tree!"

How about the wonderful greeting, "Happy Holidays!"? Department stores are afraid to put up signs with the word "Christmas" on them. Don't mistakenly think this is anything new. Secular society began taking Christ out of Christmas when they started calling it "Xmas" – and we let it happen.

In my wonderful state of Washington just last year, Gov. Christine Gregoire and the state legislators allowed an Atheist Manifesto to be put up right next to the Nativity scene of our Lord Jesus Christ! I have to say straightforward: the state of Washington is the armpit of the United States, and our lovely legislators are supplying the odoriferous scent to the armpit.

Because 2008 was such a disaster, this year there will be no Christmas or religious displays in the Capitol rotunda, period. Oh, except they will put up a huge holiday tree.

Can anybody tell me where common sense is? Everyone in the world knows it's a Christmas tree. This nonsense is all in the name of tolerance toward whom? It's certainly not toward those of us who hold strong Judeo-Christian values. As Christians, it's an attack on what we hold dear. But just like the Negroes, Christians should understand they are not equal under the Constitution's right to freedom of religion.

The only difference between Christians and African Americans is that Christians put up with this intolerance while standing behind the false disguise of humility and love. We are obsessed with showing the world our love when our primary job is to tell them the truth. The Bible does not say, "Sensitivity shall set you free." It says, "The truth shall set you free." Are we not the truth-tellers?

When are we as believers, like the African Americans that came before us, going to say, enough is enough? No more "separate but equal!" Our battle cry is "We are the salt of the earth, onward Christian soldiers and to God be the glory! For in unity we will stand and we will not be stopped!"

Replies to This Discussion

You can find diatribes like this guy's all over YouTube. These are exceptionally moronic versions of commonly held views, minus the comparison with Jim Crow. It is alarming how many black communities have no conception of a secular sphere and spit on the very notion of church-state separation. Martin Luther King Jr., by contrast, championed the strict separation of church and state. But he was no garden variety dumbass preacher.

My answer to this key question will be speculative, but as it demands a lengthy exposition, I will have to come back to this later. The answer, however, will overlap considerably with the answer as to why redneck America cannot accept a secular public sphere.

I have no problems calling it a Christmas tree. Is that all this guy has to complain about? And what the heck are "Judeo-Christian" values. As opposed to what? The immoralities of Hindus and Wiccans? And why does this guy complain about secularism like it's a bad thing when some of the most secular countries are those that are thriving?

Agreed. It's a common misconception down here in Texas that all of New England is just liberal hippie commune. I have seen plenty of bigots in the small towns of New England, especially as you go further north and away from the Boston-New York metropolis area.

Wow. How could anyone possibly compare whatever supposed oppression (modern) Christians claim to the centuries of brutalization that the African race endured? Even if we limit the comparison to black Americans in the 1950s and 1960s, please show me one instance of a Christian being denied his voting rights (either directly or indirectly through a "literacy" test), being forced to use lesser public facilities, or being lynched by a drunken mob of secularists.
The only difference between Christians and African Americans is that Christians put up with this intolerance while standing behind the false disguise of humility and love. We are obsessed with showing the world our love when our primary job is to tell them the truth.

Wait, what? Martin Luther King, Jr. based his entire crusade for civil rights on love, humility, and non-violence; this paragraph makes it sound like poor persecuted Christians suffer in silence while angry African Americans have done nothing but riot for their freedom. Even more damning to this false contrast is that Christians have quite a strange way of "showing the world [their] love" by killing abortion doctors, fighting for legislation to halt lifesaving stem cell research, and pouring mass amounts of resources into preventing two people of the same gender from legally uniting. If that is love, then I would prefer to be hated.

When are we as believers, like the African Americans that came before us, going to say, enough is enough? No more "separate but equal!"

This is just the worst attempt at drawing a parallel that I have ever seen. It is so incredibly stupid that I really do not even know how to respond to it properly. The only thing that the doctrines of "separation of church and state" and "separate but equal" have in common is the use of the word "separate."

Wow. This disgusting analogy really just gets worse the further that it is dug into. So much for all that Christian love and humility. Then again, according to the Bible it only applies to slave owners and not slaves themselves, so I guess that this actually aligns perfectly.

Doesn't this clearly place Christians as the persecutors of the persecuted blacks? Now Christians are claiming to feel the same persecution that they themselves carried out on other people. Even if there was any sort of the validity to this comparison, it would be completely invalidated by overwhelming hypocrisy.

Wow! This article goes way to far. Most of the cases presented as examples of so-called Christian prosecution are either justifiable (i.e. the cases of hate speech) or frankly not worth fighting for (why would you even WANT Walmart to be able to exploit Christmas?). The worst part is that these kind of extreme rants actually serve to make a mockery of legitimate cases. For instance, the Prejean case, at least from what I've read of it, does seem troubling. If there is any truth to the assertion by the judge that she lost because she held an opinion different from his, then this is problematic. It would have been far better, frankly, to just avoid questions on such clearly contentious issues, or to have very strict rules in place for the judging of the quality of the answer given.